Garney v. Massachusetts Teachers' Retirement System
469 Mass. 384
| Mass. | 2014Background
- Garney, a long-time ninth-grade science teacher, was convicted of purchasing and possessing child pornography based on a 2006 investigation.
- He resigned shortly before dismissal for conduct unbecoming a teacher and began receiving retirement benefits in 2007.
- MTRS sought to forfeit his pension under G. L. c. 32, § 15(4) after final conviction, relying on a link to his teaching role.
- The board found a direct link, citing use of a school email address and the nature of teaching duties to justify forfeiture.
- A Superior Court judge vacated the board’s forfeiture decision; the District Court and appellate path led to Supreme Judicial Court review on its own motion.
- Court's focus is whether Garney’s private crimes directly violated laws applicable to his office or position, sufficing for forfeiture under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether there is a direct link between Garney’s crime and his teaching position | Garney: no direct link; private conduct outside school | MTRS: special public trust and link via applicable laws | no direct link; forfeiture not warranted |
| whether special public trust alone supports forfeiture | Garney: special-trust notion insufficient | Bulger-based view allows broader forfeiture for special trust | special trust alone insufficient; requires direct statutory violation linked to office |
| whether laws applicable to teaching position were violated by Garney's conduct | Garney did not violate teaching-specific laws | There is an implied link via professional duties | no identifiable law applicable to teaching position violated by Garney’s private crime |
| whether being a mandated reporter creates the requisite link | mandated-reporter status should connect to forfeiture | link not established because conduct occurred privately and not learned in professional capacity | mandated reporter status does not, by itself, create the required link |
| whether review of board decision under c. 249, § 4 is proper and limited | Garney seeks judgment on pleadings based on lack of direct link | Board’s factual findings should be given narrow review; standard is whether error affected substantial rights | limited, deferential review; no reversible error found on the direct-link analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Bulger v. Retirement Bd. of the Suffolk County District, 446 Mass. 169 (Mass. 2006) (requires direct link between offense and laws applicable to office; narrow penal interpretation)
- Gaffney v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 423 Mass. 1 (Mass. 1996) (narrow construction of § 15(4); not every offense triggers forfeiture)
- Buonomo v. Retirement Bd. of Somerville, 467 Mass. 662 (Mass. 2014) (forfeiture when crime violates laws applicable to office; core duties matter)
- Durkin v. Boston Retirement Bd., 83 Mass. App. Ct. 116 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013) (offense not linked to official duties may foreclose forfeiture; on/off-duty distinctions considered)
- Tyler v. Retirement Bd. of Maynard, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 109 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013) (special-public-trust theory discussed but not determinative for § 15(4))
- Scully v. Retirement Bd. of Beverly, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 538 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011) (private, non-school crime not linked to position; no forfeiture)
- Perryman v. School Committee of Boston, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 346 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983) (special public trust context for teachers discussed)